Do you really think
by wcnitz (2023-01-16 13:00:36)
Edited on 2023-01-16 13:14:00

In reply to: What impact did Rashford have on the defense.  posted by ANNTOSTAL


Rashford's run and proximity to the ball had no clear impact on the involved defenders, including the keeper?

I realize this isn't a classic example of 'gaining an advantage from an offside position', but...it really is. Like I said above and in my original post - you can certainly make a case for goal here based on your interpretation. But I think it's contrary to the spirit of the game.

Notice the defender to the right in the picture. Did they lay off the player who took the shot because they thought Rashford was going to strike it and they wouldn't get there? What about the keeper's positioning?

edit: here's another scenario for you. Imagine the same play, but instead of the ball being played diagonally to the middle of the field, it was done perpendicular to the goal line so only Rashford could get there.

Ball is played
Rashford gives chase, 10y+ away
Left side defender gives chase, 10y+ away
Rashford within a yard, doesn't attempt to play the ball
Defender gets close
Before defender can play the ball, AR puts his flag up for an offside offense

Now it's easy for you to say 'well that isn't an offside offense', but ask yourself this: if Rashford immediately gives up on that ball because he knows he's in an offside position, does that defender have to make that sprint to get to it? Keep in mind, 'challenging' for the ball as defined by IFAB does not need to include physical contact.


The point of my posts …
by ANNTOSTAL  (2023-01-16 18:46:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

… has not been to express my own perspective on what should be considered offside, but rather to describe the training I received. I was specifically taught that an affirmative repositioning by the GK, to cover the possibility of a pass to the player in OS position, was NOT alone sufficient to trigger a determination of active involvement in the play.

Were I in charge of writing the Laws, or of guiding their implementation, I would find that affirmative repositioning, or the GK’s maintenance of a suboptimal position for the same purpose, to be sufficient for an OS call, as I suspect you would. I’ve watched the play now about a dozen times, and I’m not sure that standard is met here.

Where you and I part company is with your point about the defender on the right who hypothetically slows because of a conviction that the player in OS position will play the ball before the player whom the defender is marking. I can’t imagine why we would want an OS rule that protects the defender from the consequences of that particular decision.

Thanks for explaining your view. I found it interesting and thought-provoking.